Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Twitter

Twitter is Testing a Feature That Limits Who Can Reply To Your Tweets (techcrunch.com) 96

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Twitter today acknowledged that it's begun testing a new setting that let users limit who can reply to tweets. From a report: The setting was first noted earlier this year. Similar to Facebook's post view settings, the current implementation features a small glove icon in the corner. Tapping on it brings up a "Who Can Reply?" window. From there, users can pick from one of three options: Everyone, People You Follow and Only People You Mention. If you opt for either of the latter, the reply function will greyed out for all who don't fit the description. They can view, like and retweet the thing, but they won't be able to reply directly to the sender. The thread itself will also acknowledge that replies are limited.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter is Testing a Feature That Limits Who Can Reply To Your Tweets More

Twitter is Testing a Feature That Limits Who Can Reply To Your Tweets

Comments Filter:

  • lol.... as usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:38PM (#60082958)

    Lets be all inclusive and accepting...

    now, lets start culling the folks we never liked to begin with...

    As usual from this crowd... freedom for me but not for thee!

    Did you want a public forum? If so, then you have to listen to the losers just like the winners. Now, if you want an echo chamber... this is how you do it. Just imagine... the fact that we have always shown that as a society we have always existed in some form of the Black Mirror: Nosedive reality.

    If humans have to live fake, it will take far less of flashpoint to make people break and we should probably avoid doing that as a society if we want to people to stop snapping and trying to massively kill each other. It's funny how fragile the human psyche can be.

    • Re:lol.... as usual (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @02:02PM (#60083080)
      The funny part is that the people who want this feature so that "the bad people" can't respond to them don't realize it's going to be used against them. The amount of outrage that a shit stirrer can generate by goading and provoking someone and then removing their ability to reply to it it too great for trolls to ignore.

      I have a feeling that Twitter will eventually decide not to go forward with this or drop it after trying it out. It only makes them less useful as a platform and makes it easy for something else to take its place.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trawg ( 308495 )

        The funny part is that the people who want this feature so that "the bad people" can't respond to them don't realize it's going to be used against them. The amount of outrage that a shit stirrer can generate by goading and provoking someone and then removing their ability to reply to it it too great for trolls to ignore.

        Hmm, if they're trolling, isn't the entire point to elicit an actual, concrete response from someone? In Twitter this comes in the form of enraged replies or subtweets.

        Those are the only two feedback mechanisms [that I'm aware of?] for people to get baited by trolls.

        It seems to me that trolls posting stuff and denying people the ability to respond would just be screaming into the void and not getting the attention/feedback/responses they actually want.

        I kinda agree with you that Twitter will probably not g

    • I think your takeaway from this is a bit off-center.
      Consider this:

      You've got some friends over to your house, and you're all sitting in your living room, and you're all having a discussion about {subject}.
      Suddenly, a bunch of total strangers burst through your front door, and start making unwanted comments about your previously-private conversation with friends

      Does that sound right to you? No? Well, that's the way Twitter has been, apparently, up until now.
      Sounds to me like they're trying to correct that -- although I already see a problem in the way they're doing that:

      They can view, like and retweet the thing, but they won't be able to reply directly to the sender.

      ..so, the Total Strangers aren't bursting through your front door and barging in on your conversation-with-friends, they're on the street outside your house with surveillance equipment, listening in covertly to everything being sai

      • Rick, twitter is less like your living room and more like the public square

        fyi, you cannot prevent other people from free speech in the public square, even if it angers you

        • Apparently you didn't understand a single word I said. Try re-reading it more carefully, you've totally missed the meaning -- either unintentionally, or intentionally.

          • Nope, I understood what you said, but I do not accept the premise. If you want a private communication channel with your friends keep in on DM, email or just invite them to your home, do not expect a public broadcast facility like twitter to cater to you

          • No he is right, your premise is the one that is being missed.
            Comparing Twitter and your Living Room is disingenuous.

            Twitter is designed so that your conversation is easily distributed to others. Sure a conversation in your living room could be shared with others, but not so easily and certainly not with the same veracity as Twitter. If someone forwards what you say on twitter, the system itself saying you said it is solid evidence that you said it versus someone saying they hear you say something in your

            • Oh for fucks sake why can't they decide to change the way their site works so you maybe CAN HAVE at least semi-private conversations? Why are you people getting your panties in a twist over this?
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • If they want to broadcast to a group of followers and not hear any feedback, then they can use any number of messaging apps

            When they use Twitter they are seeking a large audience, and those people ought to be able to reply

          • This just caters to that particular type of user that, for some reason, thinks they are on a private chat site and gets uppity when someone from outside their clique pipes up. It doesn't matter if what is said is contentious, inflammatory or even supportive, some cling to the fantasy that they aren't in a town square yelling to the world just because there's so much yelling going on their particular yelling doesn't travel far.

            As you say, it's the usage that has altered the expectation when it was never adve

            • This just caters to that particular type of user that, for some reason, thinks they are on a private chat site and gets uppity when someone from outside their clique pipes up. It doesn't matter if what is said is contentious, inflammatory or even supportive, some cling to the fantasy that they aren't in a town square yelling to the world just because there's so much yelling going on their particular yelling doesn't travel far.

              You seem to be really outraged by something. Your analogy isn't really correct eit

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shotgun ( 30919 )

            So, they're now Facebook?

        • for one thing my local public square isn't owned by a mega conglomerate (yet [duckduckgo.com])

          A text based web forum isn't a public square, it's more like a meeting place open to the public. Anyone can go in and listen, but if you get rowdy or are off topic don't be surprised when the bouncers see you out.

          Besides, it's the Marketplace of Ideas, right? Won't the best ideas always make it to the top?
          • Under a corporatocracy, which is what we have in America, corporations own the government. What should be public is owned by oligarchs. And these oligarchs are hostile to us and our needs, and want us to shut the hell up. Government should step in, but it's not going to happen due to the aforementioned corporatocracy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cederic ( 9623 )

            Anyone can go in and listen, but if you get rowdy or are off topic don't be surprised when the bouncers see you out.

            The problem is that the bouncers throw you out for pointing out that the topic of conversation is inherently sexist or racist, or that it's preaching hatred.

      • What is funny to me is that I never would have thought a feature like this ever be available on Twitter, ever... Actually I never would have seen Twitter as an appropriate platform to have back and forth conversations on either.

        And that is one of the things I originally liked about Twitter. To me it was a unique sort of platform, one I enjoyed before they started doing things like automatically subscribing me to things based on it's perceived knowledge of my interests, effectively flooding out people I act

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 )

        Twitter has long had a feature where people can limit visibility of their tweets to their followers, which comes with the ability to limit who is allowed to follow you. The only drawback is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition; you can't limit some tweets to followers and broadcast others to the world.

      • Twitter is the new public square. Like it or not, it is. These new restrictions are being rolled out because bluecheck elites don't want us filthy commoners talking back to them. And they especially don't want us making good points or refuting what they say with citations to back it up. In the future this era will be known as the Great Silencing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Why would you be trying to hold a private conversation in an open forum?

        Would a better analogy be, "You're having a conversation over lunch with a group of friends."

        In that analogy, most people still expect to be overheard, and will substantially lower their voices before talking about private matters.

      • So... start an irc channel. The tech exists already, and it's free. Twitter was never intended to be a chat room, but that's what you're proposing it should be?

      • Well, if a bunch of hooligans broke in my front door I'd just pull out my gun and shoot them all dead.

    • I took it as president snowflake putting pressure on twitter to avoid being offended by reality

      • It's somewhat laughable to think that Twitter would listen to him in the first place, but the courts have already ruled the politicians (at least those at the national level) can't block people on Twitter, so it's safe to presume that they wouldn't be permitted to use this functionality either.

        • Is it laughable to think that they would listen to the guy who can use all of the federal agencies against Twitter and demand something in return, just like twitler is currently trying to strong arm Michigan?

          No, it is sad, not laughable at all

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shotgun ( 30919 )

          I don't know that it WOULD be safe to say. Politicians had to be open, because it was deemed an official communication channel, so people could not be blocked from receiving the official communication. Letters to Congress people get ignored all the time. You have no right to talk TOO an official on a particular medium. Or, do you?

          I'll put down paper money that there will be a court case to decide one way or the other.

      • I would not be surprised if he enables this feature.

    • this is not wanting trolls to overwhelm a useful discussion.

      Lots of folks don't want a public forum. They want a discussion on a specific topic. I remember knitting club that had to ban Trump supporters because they wouldn't stop going off the rails about politics instead of, you know, knitting.

      For a less obvious example, if I create a forum for discussing a left wing political candidate's primary challenge and the Establishment candidates folks flood my channel then, yeah, I want them out. The foru

    • Did you want a public forum?

      Frankly, I think the idea that this is a "public forum" is a joke because it's not localized to any definition of public. It should be called a global forum because that's how far the reach is. I think a better way of managing the insanity is to have a limited geographical reach.

      Did you want a public forum? If so, then you have to listen to the losers just like the winners.

      In an actual public forum, this means that you may have one or two disruptive individuals. The problem is not that these people are disruptive it's now they can parade their way into a conversation with hundreds of others from ar

    • > Did you want a public forum? If so, then you have to listen to the losers just like the winners

      The problem is professional trolls and foreign states are (very successfully) trolling public forums, and perhaps at times dominating them. Who knows who is a real person anymore? Even slashdot has begun to see a lot of daily political conversations... who is starting them, who is participating in them? I sometimes wonder if I am just watching Russian trolls go back and forth on the same thread just to be p

      • tmmagee, you might think of me as an "amateur political troll" because I am not state sponsored or even worthy of private sponsorship

        Most likely because I trust neither states nor corporations and regularly waste too much of my time trying to bash the astro-turfers or spread links to actual information that dries up their arguments

        FYI, slashdot was bought by Dice who tried to monetize it into a source of tech workers, then sold it to a media company that has marketed slashdot as a way to "influence" the tec

  • To Paraphrase Gilmore . . . (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:41PM (#60082968)
    SJWs interpret censorship as cock, and fellate it.
    • You talk like echo chambers are only a SJW thing, but I know of one fairly well-known twitter user who went to court asking for the right to block people on twitter, and he doesn't call himself a SJW.
    • Some people (like you, apparently) insist on politicizing every gods-be-damned thing, even if it's the website of a private company not in any way shape or form a part of the federal government, and therefore not bound by the Constitution.
      You, on the other hand, should exercise your Constitutional rights: don't like how Twitter is run? Don't use it. Enough people agree with you? Twitter will change it's policies.

    • Conservatives condemn abortion and gay marriage, but get them for their mistresses and fuck gay male prostitutes.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        Conservatives condemn abortion and gay marriage, but get them for their mistresses and fuck gay male prostitutes.

        How many years have they spent trying to get people like you to not stereotype and generalize? Most conservatives don't do that and you know it. It's not like you have to take a test to be a conservative, pay dues and you get a card. Anyone can call themselves a conservative just like anyone can call themselves a liberal or even a communist.

        If they're doing that, they're not conservative by definition.

        To lump everyone in like that is like you saying all black people are criminals.

  • After all, it's just Twitter. It's not like anyone gives a shit what you say (or don't get to say) there.

  • Hold my beer... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hiroshimarrow ( 5489734 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:48PM (#60083010)

    while I make an echo chamber only carry sound one way.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Miser ( 36591 )

      You beat me to it!

      Definitely sounds like the makings of an echo chamber to me.

      Yet another reason I am glad I never signed up for the cesspool that is Twitter.

  • Of course, nobody will abuse this feature... (Score:3)

    by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:48PM (#60083014)

    ... except for some notoriously, thin-skinned politicians.

  • I gave up Twitter long ago so I don't give a fuck about the censorfuckers
  • Anyone who says otherwise is just a h8r.

  • Echochamber Hardening (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TyIzaeL ( 1203354 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @02:00PM (#60083066)
    Wouldn't this just reinforce the self-created echochambers on Twitter?
  • Going to be interesting to see how Trump uses this feature.

    • Jokes on him. I blocked his account years ago

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      Why? Because the left will go batshit crazy over whatever it is? It is not like he has ever read any of the responses, and every one of his tweets is blasted across every American news outlet anyway.

  • They can view, like and retweet the thing, but they won't be able to reply directly to the sender.

    The problem I see here is that your enemies, or potential enemies, can still spread around what you've posted, twist it, criticize it, and you won't even be aware of it until the violent asshole species of troll are on your doorstep trying to break in and kill you.
    This shoud work both ways: be able to have completely private conversations with a select group of people, just like you'd do in your own home, not have a van full of surveillance equipment on the street outside your house listening in and broadc

    • You'll still be able to see retweets so its not entirely invisible.

    • "This should work both ways: be able to have completely private conversations with a select group of people, just like you'd do in your own home, not have a van full of surveillance equipment on the street outside your house listening in and broadcasting everything said."

      Whatever happened to email?

    • This shoud work both ways: be able to have completely private conversations with a select group of people, just like you'd do in your own home, not have a van full of surveillance equipment on the street outside your house listening in and broadcasting everything said.

      If you want to have a private conversation with friends, maybe you shouldn't be trying to have it over live microphones in a crowded public place. There are other options.

      • Why the hell are some of you so resistant to this idea? I don't even like or use Twitter and wouldn't, but for people who do, why can't they be allowed to have control over who sees what they decide to post there, and the option to have at least a semi-private conversation within a defined group, without a bunch of trolls and nosy people butting in? Does this concept somehow threaten you? Or are you one of those people who think that every gods-be-damned thing has to be totally public, no privacy allowed fo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          are you one of those people who think that every gods-be-damned thing has to be totally public, no privacy allowed for anyone, ever? Explain yourself!

          The explanation is that you're making wrongful inferences based on your own rage and ignorance. Hush, you look silly.

  • I can imagine that this new feature will be immediately appreciated by certain government leaders who don't want to hear any criticism from the plebs. Sure, this includes Trump, but I'm more concerned about dictators like Kim Jong Un.

    I doubt many people have been paying attention, but North Korea has been making a considerable amount of effort promoting themselves on YouTube. Channels like "NEW DPRK" and "Phuong DPRK Daily" have been promoting state sponsored messages under the false premise that it's ordinary people posting "average daily life" videos of the glorious paradise the world should envy. What's particularly concerning about this self-aggrandizing is the amount of censorship they apply to all the YouTube comments they receive. Take for example this video highlighting the start of the rice planting season in the country [youtube.com]. Notice how all the comments are peculiarly positive in nature? And any inquisitive questions (and responses) are all engineered in such a way to promote the views of the party? Go ahead and try to post a negative comment yourself. Watch how it mysteriously disappears very quickly. I wonder why. They also use the platform to smear those who work against their political interests, like this video [youtube.com], where they smear in the comments Yeonmi Park [wikipedia.org], a refugee who escaped North Korea and has spent much of her life advocating for the removal of the regime, including in this video [youtube.com] that went viral back in 2014.

    Sure, repressive governments have many ways they can already promote themselves. But we need to recognize the size, volume, and affect that Twitter has on our society. Give someone like Kim Jong Un a megaphone like Twitter with the tools they need to censor any messages that run counter to their idealism, and their message could grow in power very quickly. (And to those of you who think no one will listen, remember that there's people who believe the Earth is flat, all thanks to the internet. People are listening to crazy, and some are even believing it.)

  • It is already restricted so that only twats can reply to tweets. You have to be a twat to reply to a twitter already. Its right there in Twitters slogan:

    "Twitter, where All the Twats Hang-out"

  • One that comes to mind right away is "Everyone except people who have blocked me" Probably what they should end up having is a now-list, a no-list, and everyone else, where replies from everyone else show up with a duration settable delay. Then, they could have various methods for auto-populating the lists.
  • Trump wont be allowed to use this feature, despite other politicians being allowed. Its totally fair though because banana.

  • You know old orange thin skin will be using this extensively.

  • Do not show me any tweets that limit comments. If you want to be heard you must be willing to listen.

    • If you want to be heard you must be willing to listen.

      Since when. Free speech is the right to speak not the right to force other people to listen to you. If you want people to listen to you.

  • This entire discussion is FULL of people who are whining and crying like Twitter is somehow ruining their lives, or taking a steaming huge dump on the U.S. Constitution, or whatever it is that's got them all riled up and talking like they should go burn Twitter to the ground and drag out it's management and cut off their heads or something.

    WHY?

    Oh noes, Twitter will let people prevent me from butting in on their conversations now, this is totally unfair I should be able to yak at whoever I want whenever I want, Twitter is a 'public forum' and I have the GOD-GIVEN *RIGHT* to say whatever I want to whoever I want whenever I want whether I'm being a rude asshole or not!!!11!!

    That's what some people in this discussion are sounding like. Guess what? You are 100% wrong.

    I don't even like or use so-called 'social media' let alone some

  • If you can't reply to anyone, who's going to use the site anymore?
  • All social media are trending to the broadcast model: a few favored sources are permitted to broadcast, and everyone else can only listen. Apparently, they think that's the road to maximum profit.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close